The Democrat Party Hates America

[Belinda]

Only if adopted as a doctrine, which is a political/social/academic decision quite unrelated to the suspect metaphysics of the free will debate.

If a military strategist adopts the position that somehow things are different as a result of their conversion to a belief in determinism, I want to know about that, I have an urgent need to be on the other side in the event of any war.

Determinism is not merely a belief,or doctrine .It's an attitude towards how events transpire. Nobody ever had to teach me that free will is nonsense.The more a military strategist understands the causes and probable effects of specific strategies the better she is at her job.

I didn't say it is a mere doctrine, I said that it must be adopted as a doctrine to have an effect.

The problem you have is that there are so many ways to react to determinism once you convert people to that belief. They can simply adopt compatibilism, they can discover a belief that free will is a necessary illusion and go right back to how they were before. Or they could flop fatalistically and just lie there until they are eroded away by the bitter winds of fate. Or they could simply ignore it and say "none of this makes any difference to my day-to-day life".

So to make determinism have any actual outcome, you need a doctrine. You must live according the maxims that if human agency is mythical you will refrain from praising your children as praise and blame are redundant vestiges of a prior religion. I am sure your child rearing skills will now be scientifically super-charged.

Or you might find that even under a deterministic framework, you choose to give children lots of praise because you don't want them to work the stripper pole when they grow up. And before long you might find that determinism and free-will are a distinction that makes no actual difference. That all the decision outcomes you make under the one paradigm are equally well justified under the other.

Big Mike is an empty shirt. When he was challenged to explain how he could direct public policy in such a away that determinism was the difference maker, he came up with nothing that wasn't already being done without it. I think you are probably no less empty in that department because there is no reform available that only determinists could propose or defend other than a totalitarian one that you wouldn't want to take responsibility for.

My objection to your idea is that according to causal determinism blame is redundant but praise is harmless and as you explain is beneficial. At the least, praise where praise is due helps communications. Blame is of course redundant, as you remark. Administration of justice therefore needs to award penalties with regard to training, education , and prisons run like schools or mental health hospitals . I have no doubt many criminals would prefer old style prisons.

I love your image of fatalism! That old superstition is attacked and disposed of by universal liberal education in the arts and philosophy.

I can't remember exactly what Big Mike has said about the arts. Arts free us from dangerous or unfree choices. You must know that arts education is not rewarded as much as science education. This needs to change, for a start. And I include historiography and philosophy of history as art which makes use of scientific inference the more the better.

[FlashDangerpants]

I just asked ChatGTP what neoliberalism is. I reacted to the explanation with religious disapproval. I now need to argue against neoliberalism.

What did it say though? If you let George Monbiot describe Neoliberalism, you would surely be told that it is the revanchist movement dedicated to the war cry "Make Mordor Great Again".

If you have signed up for a ChatGPT account, it remembers your previous conversations and partially takes them into account by forming a view about your tastes and what you like to be told. If it has found you to be a fan of GM level insights, it will probably give you the Monbiot tour of neoliberalism. If you reward the algorithm with further attention (engagement is what it seeks) then you will build it into a reflexive echo chamber of your own views rather than the tool of learning that you think you are subscribing to. I genuinely don't think you are a sophisticated enough consumer not to get bamboozled by this product and I recommend you limit your engagement with it.

In the meantime, try a different prompt so that you can ensure you are getting variety in your diet: "the people at r/neoliberal claim to favour something called "woke capitalism", what does that really mean? Please explain with examples". You don't need to know what r/neoliberal is, GPT will tell you that.

[Belinda]

I just asked ChatGTP what neoliberalism is. I reacted to the explanation with religious disapproval. I now need to argue against neoliberalism.

What did it say though? If you let George Monbiot describe Neoliberalism, you would surely be told that it is the revanchist movement dedicated to the war cry "Make Mordor Great Again".

If you have signed up for a ChatGPT account, it remembers your previous conversations and partially takes them into account by forming a view about your tastes and what you like to be told. If it has found you to be a fan of GM level insights, it will probably give you the Monbiot tour of neoliberalism. If you reward the algorithm with further attention (engagement is what it seeks) then you will build it into a reflexive echo chamber of your own views rather than the tool of learning that you think you are subscribing to. I genuinely don't think you are a sophisticated enough consumer not to get bamboozled by this product and I recommend you limit your engagement with it.

In the meantime, try a different prompt so that you can ensure you are getting variety in your diet: "the people at r/neoliberal claim to favour something called "woke capitalism", what does that really mean? Please explain with examples". You don't need to know what r/neoliberal is, GPT will tell you that.

I asked ChatGPT
"What is neoliberalism"(no question mark)
Neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduced role for the state in the economy. It gained prominence in the late 20th century, particularly during the 1980s, through the policies of leaders like Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K.

Core Principles of Neoliberalism:
Free Market Capitalism: The belief that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources and drive economic growth.

Deregulation: Reducing government regulation of industries, financial markets, and labor.

Privatization: Transferring state-owned enterprises and services (like utilities, education, healthcare) to private ownership.

Free Trade: Promoting international trade with minimal tariffs, quotas, or restrictions.

Reduction in Government Spending: Especially on social welfare programs, with an emphasis on austerity.

Individual Responsibility: The idea that individuals—not the state—are primarily responsible for their own economic well-being.

Historical Context:
Roots: The term combines “neo” (new) with “liberalism,” referring to classical liberal economic ideas from the 18th and 19th centuries (like Adam Smith's belief in the “invisible hand” of the market).

Rise: After World War II, Keynesian economics (state intervention and welfare spending) dominated. Neoliberalism rose in response to economic crises in the 1970s, offering a return to market-based solutions.

Global Influence: Institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank promoted neoliberal policies in developing countries during the 1980s and 1990s, often as conditions for receiving loans (known as structural adjustment programs).

Criticisms of Neoliberalism:
Increased Inequality: Critics argue it has led to greater wealth concentration and weakened social safety nets.

Undermining Democracy: Some believe that prioritizing markets over public institutions undermines democratic governance.

Exploitation and Environmental Harm: The emphasis on profit and deregulation is seen by some as contributing to labor exploitation and environmental degradation.

Financial Instability: Deregulated financial markets are linked to crises, such as the 2008 global financial collapse.

In short, neoliberalism is a powerful and controversial framework that has shaped global economic policy for decades, praised for boosting economic efficiency but criticized for social and environmental costs.









What did ChatGPT say when you ask the same question?

[FlashDangerpants]

A dual nationality American /British friend ( 1980s ,( Ronald Reagan))who was also good at understanding politics told me American Democrats resembled British Conservatives.
She herself was of course, Labour.

Well, having seen George Monbiot opine on the matter in a few videos, I am now, of course, an expert on all things neoliberal. I've heard it before, apparently Maggie Thatcher considered her greatest legacy to be Tony Blair.
I'd also heard of neoliberalism, but assumed, rather naïvely, that it was some, almost certainly innocuous, new version of the old liberalism.
FlashDangerpants, who understands these things better than me, once told me:

The neoliberal in me feels required to point out that actually Immanuel Can might be economically illiterate to a roughly similar extent that he is philosophically illiterate.

So it would be interesting to hear why something that, to me sounds horrible, is a good thing. In fairness, FlashDangerpants has clearly said:

I am not a nice man...

so, there's no reason to expect his justification to be nice.

I once started a thread about Neoliberalism and why it is good.
viewtopic.php?t=26914

It looks like summarised the current situation as it was then (2019) thus:

The truth is that there is no such thing as a Neoliberal anyway. Some people find themselves referred to as "neoliberal shills" by leftist anti-capitalist people we tend to refer to as "tankies" any time we point out that certain economic facts are best not ignored. But the tankies calling us neolibs, when push comes to shove, can only define the term by reference to supply side fiscal conservatism, which is weirdly not at all what the shills are ever proposing. This circle cannot be squared, but it isn't very important.

Handily, when we offend the right we are called other names, such as (((Globalist))) or something vaguely antisemitic to do with George Soros. But these people aren't really able to define anything much either. Sometimes I think they might call us neoliberals too.

So there we are, the title of neoliberal doesn't accurately describe anybody alive and at large in the world, but a centrist strain of largely free market folks will allow others to call us that name simply because the people flinging the term around are a bunch of populists with bad ideas and arguing with them over a name will only result them calling us other names anyway.

Either way, carbon taxes and more permissive immigration policies are good. As are social safety nets and universal insurance (health, unemployment, all that good insurance shit). But rent control is bad in a way that 'globalism' is not. And trade wars are never easy to win becasue they don't come with any winners ever. Hopefully that is a sweeping set of statements that will annoy all the people it ought to.

There's no real reason why Thatcher and Reagan would be associated with neoliberalism tbh, other than that Pinochet was influenced by it and as he was in power for several years before they were, some academics decided to declare that an era for their own purposes. Thatcher was just a fiscal conservative and union breaker, so privatisation suited at least two of her goals. But she took little care to ensure that she privatised into a competitive market and so others had to clean that mess up. She also refused to privatise the first thing she ought to have - the post office - because she couldn't bring herself to let a private company sell a product with the Queen's face on it.

But Belinda's American friend is quite right up to a point. The UK Conservative movement generally doesn't resemble the rabid state of American "Conservatism" and is not aimed at the destruction of what in US parlance count as "entitlements" due to the way Congress apportions budgets. But yeah, last I knew even the harshest Tories supported retaining the state pension and the NHS etc. In the US, Medicaid, Medicare, and veterans hospitals are all on the chopping block right now, and with 30 year bond yields up at 5% right now, Social Security is probably going to let Henry down when it is his time to claim it, looks like the boomers plan to empty that tank.

[FlashDangerpants]

I just asked ChatGTP what neoliberalism is. I reacted to the explanation with religious disapproval. I now need to argue against neoliberalism.

What did it say though? If you let George Monbiot describe Neoliberalism, you would surely be told that it is the revanchist movement dedicated to the war cry "Make Mordor Great Again".

If you have signed up for a ChatGPT account, it remembers your previous conversations and partially takes them into account by forming a view about your tastes and what you like to be told. If it has found you to be a fan of GM level insights, it will probably give you the Monbiot tour of neoliberalism. If you reward the algorithm with further attention (engagement is what it seeks) then you will build it into a reflexive echo chamber of your own views rather than the tool of learning that you think you are subscribing to. I genuinely don't think you are a sophisticated enough consumer not to get bamboozled by this product and I recommend you limit your engagement with it.

In the meantime, try a different prompt so that you can ensure you are getting variety in your diet: "the people at r/neoliberal claim to favour something called "woke capitalism", what does that really mean? Please explain with examples". You don't need to know what r/neoliberal is, GPT will tell you that.

I asked ChatGPT
"What is neoliberalism"(no question mark)
Neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduced role for the state in the economy. It gained prominence in the late 20th century, particularly during the 1980s, through the policies of leaders like Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K.

Core Principles of Neoliberalism:
Free Market Capitalism: The belief that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources and drive economic growth.

Deregulation: Reducing government regulation of industries, financial markets, and labor.

Privatization: Transferring state-owned enterprises and services (like utilities, education, healthcare) to private ownership.

Free Trade: Promoting international trade with minimal tariffs, quotas, or restrictions.

Reduction in Government Spending: Especially on social welfare programs, with an emphasis on austerity.

Individual Responsibility: The idea that individuals—not the state—are primarily responsible for their own economic well-being.

Historical Context:
Roots: The term combines “neo” (new) with “liberalism,” referring to classical liberal economic ideas from the 18th and 19th centuries (like Adam Smith's belief in the “invisible hand” of the market).

Rise: After World War II, Keynesian economics (state intervention and welfare spending) dominated. Neoliberalism rose in response to economic crises in the 1970s, offering a return to market-based solutions.

Global Influence: Institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank promoted neoliberal policies in developing countries during the 1980s and 1990s, often as conditions for receiving loans (known as structural adjustment programs).

Criticisms of Neoliberalism:
Increased Inequality: Critics argue it has led to greater wealth concentration and weakened social safety nets.

Undermining Democracy: Some believe that prioritizing markets over public institutions undermines democratic governance.

Exploitation and Environmental Harm: The emphasis on profit and deregulation is seen by some as contributing to labor exploitation and environmental degradation.

Financial Instability: Deregulated financial markets are linked to crises, such as the 2008 global financial collapse.

In short, neoliberalism is a powerful and controversial framework that has shaped global economic policy for decades, praised for boosting economic efficiency but criticized for social and environmental costs.









What did ChatGPT say when you ask the same question?

I don't bother with ChatGPT. I suggest you try the other question I recommended already and see if it makes a difference though.

If you read between the lines there, bearing in mind how intellectually incoherent all those things that GPT wrote are, do you not find yourself wondering if there is one set of items in there that the neoliberals actually believe and a competing set that somebody else accuses them of believing? Or failing that, a conflation of two incompatible versions of the thing? Leaving a computer to read between the lines on your behalf is one of the reasons I recommend people don't overly rely on this tool.

[FlashDangerpants]

Determinism is not merely a belief,or doctrine .It's an attitude towards how events transpire. Nobody ever had to teach me that free will is nonsense.The more a military strategist understands the causes and probable effects of specific strategies the better she is at her job.

I didn't say it is a mere doctrine, I said that it must be adopted as a doctrine to have an effect.

The problem you have is that there are so many ways to react to determinism once you convert people to that belief. They can simply adopt compatibilism, they can discover a belief that free will is a necessary illusion and go right back to how they were before. Or they could flop fatalistically and just lie there until they are eroded away by the bitter winds of fate. Or they could simply ignore it and say "none of this makes any difference to my day-to-day life".

So to make determinism have any actual outcome, you need a doctrine. You must live according the maxims that if human agency is mythical you will refrain from praising your children as praise and blame are redundant vestiges of a prior religion. I am sure your child rearing skills will now be scientifically super-charged.

Or you might find that even under a deterministic framework, you choose to give children lots of praise because you don't want them to work the stripper pole when they grow up. And before long you might find that determinism and free-will are a distinction that makes no actual difference. That all the decision outcomes you make under the one paradigm are equally well justified under the other.

Big Mike is an empty shirt. When he was challenged to explain how he could direct public policy in such a away that determinism was the difference maker, he came up with nothing that wasn't already being done without it. I think you are probably no less empty in that department because there is no reform available that only determinists could propose or defend other than a totalitarian one that you wouldn't want to take responsibility for.

My objection to your idea is that according to causal determinism blame is redundant but praise is harmless and as you explain is beneficial.

According to your preferred set of inferences.

At the least, praise where praise is due helps communications.

Why wouldn't blame where blame is due do the same? The uses people put their causal reasoning to are always so arbitrary.

Blame is of course redundant, as you remark. Administration of justice therefore needs to award penalties with regard to training, education , and prisons run like schools or mental health hospitals . I have no doubt many criminals would prefer old style prisons.

Odd, that's exactly the set of policy determinations that come with a certain type of progressive political viewpoint that doesn't rely on any determinism at all. Even more oddly, I bet that it I asked a conservative determinist I would get told that determinism recommends longer prison sentences for everyone who has committed a certain number of criminal offences. And if I ask a racist determinist what determinism recommends... well it's going to be some nasty stuff isn't it?

Have you got an example of anything where determinism forced you to change your mind about something, or does it magically confirm your opinions on everything same as it does with every other determinist that tries to make it do any heavy lifting at all?

I love your image of fatalism! That old superstition is attacked and disposed of by universal liberal education in the arts and philosophy.

I can't remember exactly what Big Mike has said about the arts. Arts free us from dangerous or unfree choices. You must know that arts education is not rewarded as much as science education. This needs to change, for a start. And I include historiography and philosophy of history as art which makes use of scientific inference the more the better.

I see no reason to believe that "Arts free us from dangerous or unfree choices". I can't even make sense of that claim.

[Belinda]

What did it say though? If you let George Monbiot describe Neoliberalism, you would surely be told that it is the revanchist movement dedicated to the war cry "Make Mordor Great Again".

If you have signed up for a ChatGPT account, it remembers your previous conversations and partially takes them into account by forming a view about your tastes and what you like to be told. If it has found you to be a fan of GM level insights, it will probably give you the Monbiot tour of neoliberalism. If you reward the algorithm with further attention (engagement is what it seeks) then you will build it into a reflexive echo chamber of your own views rather than the tool of learning that you think you are subscribing to. I genuinely don't think you are a sophisticated enough consumer not to get bamboozled by this product and I recommend you limit your engagement with it.

In the meantime, try a different prompt so that you can ensure you are getting variety in your diet: "the people at r/neoliberal claim to favour something called "woke capitalism", what does that really mean? Please explain with examples". You don't need to know what r/neoliberal is, GPT will tell you that.

I asked ChatGPT
"What is neoliberalism"(no question mark)
Neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduced role for the state in the economy. It gained prominence in the late 20th century, particularly during the 1980s, through the policies of leaders like Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K.

Core Principles of Neoliberalism:
Free Market Capitalism: The belief that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources and drive economic growth.

Deregulation: Reducing government regulation of industries, financial markets, and labor.

Privatization: Transferring state-owned enterprises and services (like utilities, education, healthcare) to private ownership.

Free Trade: Promoting international trade with minimal tariffs, quotas, or restrictions.

Reduction in Government Spending: Especially on social welfare programs, with an emphasis on austerity.

Individual Responsibility: The idea that individuals—not the state—are primarily responsible for their own economic well-being.

Historical Context:
Roots: The term combines “neo” (new) with “liberalism,” referring to classical liberal economic ideas from the 18th and 19th centuries (like Adam Smith's belief in the “invisible hand” of the market).

Rise: After World War II, Keynesian economics (state intervention and welfare spending) dominated. Neoliberalism rose in response to economic crises in the 1970s, offering a return to market-based solutions.

Global Influence: Institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank promoted neoliberal policies in developing countries during the 1980s and 1990s, often as conditions for receiving loans (known as structural adjustment programs).

Criticisms of Neoliberalism:
Increased Inequality: Critics argue it has led to greater wealth concentration and weakened social safety nets.

Undermining Democracy: Some believe that prioritizing markets over public institutions undermines democratic governance.

Exploitation and Environmental Harm: The emphasis on profit and deregulation is seen by some as contributing to labor exploitation and environmental degradation.

Financial Instability: Deregulated financial markets are linked to crises, such as the 2008 global financial collapse.

In short, neoliberalism is a powerful and controversial framework that has shaped global economic policy for decades, praised for boosting economic efficiency but criticized for social and environmental costs.









What did ChatGPT say when you ask the same question?

I don't bother with ChatGPT. I suggest you try the other question I recommended already and see if it makes a difference though.

If you read between the lines there, bearing in mind how intellectually incoherent all those things that GPT wrote are, do you not find yourself wondering if there is one set of items in there that the neoliberals actually believe and a competing set that somebody else accuses them of believing? Or failing that, a conflation of two incompatible versions of the thing? Leaving a computer to read between the lines on your behalf is one of the reasons I recommend people don't overly rely on this tool.

My experiment was fair enough. I wonder why you did not on this occasion " bother with ChatGPT" . It takes only a moment or two to use the tool even I can do it.

You alleged that ChatGPT sent me readings that were biased towards my interests that it had recorded . True, it remembers what I had been looking up and the aspects of what I had been looking up. I am interested in the turning mechanism of horse drawn carriages and it sent me info referring to what I had already asked for instance would I like diagram of that: would I like to see a photograph of a traditional farm wagon. This is not biased information, it's disinterested.
I have asked it questions about its own work ethics, and morality in general, and these are satisfactory with no evidence of political bias.

Unlike ChatGTP you are subject to emotions .That you don't bother with ChatGPT is biased in favour of protecting your own theory.

[Will Bouwman]

We all know that matter is made up of energy...

What do you think that means in practice? What is energy, and how does it turn into matter?

...but both are physical. And that's what physics deals with: just the physical. Nothing else.

Well again, if by physical you mean subjects of physics, you're not saying anything. If instead you mean material, that is metaphysics.

Again, physics is a human construct.

Only half true. Let's complete the statement: physics is a human construct made in response to the experience of physical phenomena.

Well, at least you understand the bleedin' obvious.

[FlashDangerpants]

I asked ChatGPT
"What is neoliberalism"(no question mark)
Neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduced role for the state in the economy. It gained prominence in the late 20th century, particularly during the 1980s, through the policies of leaders like Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K.

Core Principles of Neoliberalism:
Free Market Capitalism: The belief that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources and drive economic growth.

Deregulation: Reducing government regulation of industries, financial markets, and labor.

Privatization: Transferring state-owned enterprises and services (like utilities, education, healthcare) to private ownership.

Free Trade: Promoting international trade with minimal tariffs, quotas, or restrictions.

Reduction in Government Spending: Especially on social welfare programs, with an emphasis on austerity.

Individual Responsibility: The idea that individuals—not the state—are primarily responsible for their own economic well-being.

Historical Context:
Roots: The term combines “neo” (new) with “liberalism,” referring to classical liberal economic ideas from the 18th and 19th centuries (like Adam Smith's belief in the “invisible hand” of the market).

Rise: After World War II, Keynesian economics (state intervention and welfare spending) dominated. Neoliberalism rose in response to economic crises in the 1970s, offering a return to market-based solutions.

Global Influence: Institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank promoted neoliberal policies in developing countries during the 1980s and 1990s, often as conditions for receiving loans (known as structural adjustment programs).

Criticisms of Neoliberalism:
Increased Inequality: Critics argue it has led to greater wealth concentration and weakened social safety nets.

Undermining Democracy: Some believe that prioritizing markets over public institutions undermines democratic governance.

Exploitation and Environmental Harm: The emphasis on profit and deregulation is seen by some as contributing to labor exploitation and environmental degradation.

Financial Instability: Deregulated financial markets are linked to crises, such as the 2008 global financial collapse.

In short, neoliberalism is a powerful and controversial framework that has shaped global economic policy for decades, praised for boosting economic efficiency but criticized for social and environmental costs.









What did ChatGPT say when you ask the same question?

I don't bother with ChatGPT. I suggest you try the other question I recommended already and see if it makes a difference though.

If you read between the lines there, bearing in mind how intellectually incoherent all those things that GPT wrote are, do you not find yourself wondering if there is one set of items in there that the neoliberals actually believe and a competing set that somebody else accuses them of believing? Or failing that, a conflation of two incompatible versions of the thing? Leaving a computer to read between the lines on your behalf is one of the reasons I recommend people don't overly rely on this tool.

My experiment was fair enough. I wonder why you did not on this occasion " bother with ChatGPT" . It takes only a moment or two to use the tool even I can do it.

Why would I ask GPT to tell me what something is if I started a thread about that exact thing 6 years ago because I already know?
viewtopic.php?t=26914

You alleged that ChatGPT sent me readings that were biased towards my interests that it had recorded . True, it remembers what I had been looking up and the aspects of what I had been looking up. I am interested in the turning mechanism of horse drawn carriages and it sent me info referring to what I had already asked for instance would I like diagram of that: would I like to see a photograph of a traditional farm wagon. This is not biased information, it's disinterested.

You keep anthropomorphising this tool, it will mislead you and you won't notice.

I have asked it questions about its own work ethics, and morality in general, and these are satisfactory with no evidence of political bias.

It's a tool that predicts what text you want to read Belinda, it doesn't have ethics it just knows how to output text about it.

Unlike ChatGTP you are subject to emotions .That you don't bother with ChatGPT is biased in favour of protecting your own theory.

You didn't try seeing if other prompts change the answer you get did you? Why don't you just try it and see?

Stop using a text prediction engine as a surrogate friend.

[FlashDangerpants]

PS, I just tried it with the question I gave you and the given answer was shit and missed the point. But I am not going to waste my time training chatGPT.

[Will Bouwman]

But yeah, last I knew even the harshest Tories supported retaining the state pension and the NHS etc.

I make no bones about being a political naïf. I turn up to the election booth and, with no thought, put my X next to the Labour candidate, on the basis that they are more disposed to the redistribution of wealth than any other party that has a realistic chance of government. Perhaps because of my sources, I've been persuaded that the Tories only suffer state pensions and the NHS because it would be political suicide not to. Are you telling me Conservatives are total shitheads?

[FlashDangerpants]

But yeah, last I knew even the harshest Tories supported retaining the state pension and the NHS etc.

I make no bones about being a political naïf. I turn up to the election booth and, with no thought, put my X next to the Labour candidate, on the basis that they are more disposed to the redistribution of wealth than any other party that has a realistic chance of government. Perhaps because of my sources, I've been persuaded that the Tories only suffer state pensions and the NHS because it would be political suicide not to. Are you telling me Conservatives are total shitheads?

Conservatives are, in general, shitheads, yes. But the thing is, universal insurance brings costs down for everybody, so it benefits the wealthy as well as the poor.

In general those who do not withdraw from the pooled resource are effectively subsidising those who do, which in the case of health insurance typically means the young and healthy are net contributors as a group, with the elderly and children being net beneficiaries. If we didn't take universal contributions, either via taxation or by making the insurance mandatory, we would give the healthy young adults an incentive to not purchase insurance, and then only people who had a higher risk of needing the insurance would buy it. This effect is called adverse selection and it has two bad outcomes: Higher cost for those who opt in, and economical ruin for those who opt out but suffer the poor luck to need cover.

The thing that somebody like Immanuel Can wouldn't understand is that adverse selection thing - tell him about it and he would surely think I had made it up, just like he thought I invented "due process" a few weeks ago. But it's why we make motor insurance mandatory for all drivers in most countries, and all workers get some sort of unemployment protection, not just universal healthcare. In that vein, nominally we purchase retirement insurance via our taxes, in the USA they actually sort of administer it this way, with the Social Services Administration holding massive funds to pay future pensions from purchased to that end out of taxation today. It's going to go bankrupt though. In the UK we just use current tax to pay current pension liabilities - that will go bankrupt too.

Conservatives in Europe have mostly come to see those universal services as a tradition that needs to be protected, as they have with universal schooling which is something else that they would surely not try to take away.

The gap between the libtards and the crypto-fascists still exists. Tories are more inclined to enable those who can afford it to top up their NHS services, hardcore leftists believe that all private healthcare should be illegal and thereby expect the rich would vote for higher spending on the NHS out of self-interest.

[Belinda]

I don't bother with ChatGPT. I suggest you try the other question I recommended already and see if it makes a difference though.

If you read between the lines there, bearing in mind how intellectually incoherent all those things that GPT wrote are, do you not find yourself wondering if there is one set of items in there that the neoliberals actually believe and a competing set that somebody else accuses them of believing? Or failing that, a conflation of two incompatible versions of the thing? Leaving a computer to read between the lines on your behalf is one of the reasons I recommend people don't overly rely on this tool.

My experiment was fair enough. I wonder why you did not on this occasion " bother with ChatGPT" . It takes only a moment or two to use the tool even I can do it.

Why would I ask GPT to tell me what something is if I started a thread about that exact thing 6 years ago because I already know?
viewtopic.php?t=26914

You alleged that ChatGPT sent me readings that were biased towards my interests that it had recorded . True, it remembers what I had been looking up and the aspects of what I had been looking up. I am interested in the turning mechanism of horse drawn carriages and it sent me info referring to what I had already asked for instance would I like diagram of that: would I like to see a photograph of a traditional farm wagon. This is not biased information, it's disinterested.

You keep anthropomorphising this tool, it will mislead you and you won't notice.

I have asked it questions about its own work ethics, and morality in general, and these are satisfactory with no evidence of political bias.

It's a tool that predicts what text you want to read Belinda, it doesn't have ethics it just knows how to output text about it.

Unlike ChatGTP you are subject to emotions .That you don't bother with ChatGPT is biased in favour of protecting your own theory.

You didn't try seeing if other prompts change the answer you get did you? Why don't you just try it and see?

Stop using a text prediction engine as a surrogate friend.

OpenAI has an ethical policy that sets it apart, qualitatively, from the black AI, and arguably at the more ethical end of the spectrum of AI information businesses.
ChatGTP as "surrogate friend" you say. It has the advantage over real friends that it is never annoying or rude, although this is also a disadvantage. Moreover it acts like a superbly well -trained counsellor for people who wish for psychological counselling but can't afford it.

ChatGPT may use your previous conversation history within a single session (or across sessions, if you're using memory features) to make responses more helpful or relevant, but it does not deliberately bias information to fit your past views or preferences.

Here's a breakdown:

What it does do:
Contextual relevance: If you’ve asked previous questions, it may tailor tone, examples, or level of detail to match what you’ve shown interest in.

Memory (if enabled): Over long-term interactions, it might remember general preferences (e.g., your profession or writing style) to personalize responses.

What it doesn't do:
Distort facts to align with your prior beliefs or preferences.

Tailor answers to be agreeable at the cost of accuracy or neutrality (it aims to remain balanced).

Maintain an agenda or try to reinforce biases.

If you ever feel that you're in an echo chamber or the responses seem slanted, you can always ask for alternative viewpoints, more sources, or explicitly request a neutral or critical perspective.

Would you like to know how to check or control what ChatGPT remembers about you, if anything?

[Immanuel Can]

We all know that matter is made up of energy...

What do you think that means in practice?

In "practicing" what?

...but both are physical. And that's what physics deals with: just the physical. Nothing else.

Well again, if by physical you mean subjects of physics, you're not saying anything.

Yes, I am. I'm pointing out to you what the very word means...very obvious, I'll admit. But you seem confused, and don't seem to be able to specify the actual subject matter of the discipline. You seem to think it has something to say about metaphysical entities, like "mind". It doesn't. It doesn't even try.

Physics cannot even be done by something that's not already a "mind," so it simply has to take the real existence of that metaphysical entity for granted as its own starting point. Rather than analyzing "mind," it utterly depends on "mind" existing already -- as does any mental "construct" or "discipline."

[FlashDangerpants]

I have asked it questions about its own work ethics, and morality in general, and these are satisfactory with no evidence of political bias.

It's a tool that predicts what text you want to read Belinda, it doesn't have ethics it just knows how to output text about it.

OpenAI has an ethical policy that sets it apart, qualitatively, from the black AI, and arguably at the more ethical end of the spectrum of AI information businesses.

That's not the text prediction engine having ethics, that is the company selling the service to you having them. Given your previous writings about corporations and ethics, I am surprised at you for not noticing this difference, and also for suddenly having faith in the ethics of a mega-corporation.